[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The GreatViews expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.

We the undersigned, through this letter, protest your irresponsible and unscientific actions.

This letter is in concern of publication of a map by your organization, which, according to all international organizations, is fraudulent and distorted, and its publication guarantees the violation of undeniable international legal rights.

It is a proven scholarly fact that the name of the Persian Gulf is a genuine name, with historical roots, and using any fraudulent names such as the “Arabian Gulf”, and islands “Occupied by Iran” is in fact inducing political animosity.

We did not expect National Geographic, as a prestigious international scientific institution, to ignore the proven obvious, and damage its own reputation on the basis of political intentions, and thus create an atmosphere of public mistrust in its content, and hurt the national pride of the millions of Persian speakers while doing so.

While announcing our disgust at such a heresy, we demand an immediate editorial review and correction of this publication by the National Geographic.

We the undersigned, through this letter, protest your irresponsible and unscientific actions.

This letter is in concern of publication of a map by your organization, which, according to all international organizations, is fraudulent and distorted, and its publication guarantees the violation of undeniable international legal rights.

It is a proven scholarly fact that the name of the Persian Gulf is a genuine name, with historical roots, and using any fraudulent names such as the “Arabian Gulf”, and islands “Occupied by Iran” is in fact inducing political animosity.

We did not expect National Geographic, as a prestigious international scientific institution, to ignore the proven obvious, and damage its own reputation on the basis of political intentions, and thus create an atmosphere of public mistrust in its content, and hurt the national pride of the millions of Persian speakers while doing so.

While announcing our disgust at such a heresy, we demand an immediate editorial review and correction of this publication by the National Geographic.

Posted on www.daneshjoo.org "About Iran" section in July
2002 ; Mass emailed on November 23, 2004

Introduction:

British Government's announcement in January 1968 of the
decision of terminating Pax-Britannica in the "Persian
Gulf" caused a sense of urgency for closer cooperation
among regional states. Settlement of territorial and
boundary differences, thus, became a necessity, especially
in the offshore areas where exploitation of new oilfields
was expanding rapidly.

With an average depth of about 50 metres, the whole of the
Persian Gulf is an extended continental shelf, and its
curved rectangular shape, puts Iranian territories on the
opposite side of territories of most Arab states of the
southern side.

Iran had in 1965 negotiated with Britain for delimitation
of maritime areas, which established the median line of the
sea as a principle upon which the continental shelf between
Iran and her Arab neighbours was to be divided. It was on
the basis of this principle that the subsequent maritime
delimitation agreements were achieved.

In anticipation of existence of oil structures across
maritime boundaries, Iran decided to enforce a provision in
her continental shelf agreements with the states on the
opposite side preventing inappropriate exploitation of such
structures. According to this provision, which appears in
all continental shelf boundary agreements, if a petroleum
structure extends across the boundary and could be
exploited from the other side, there should be no
sub-surface well completion within 125 metres of the
boundary without the mutual agreement of the two parties.
The area of drilling prohibition is 500 metres with Saudi
Arabia.

Ignoring United Arab Emirates' internal boundaries, the
eight states littoral to the Persian Gulf need, at least,
sixteen continental shelf boundaries among them. Of these
only seven have been negotiated of which four are related
to Iran. Two of the most complicated border issues settled
in this period were those of late 1968 between Iran and
Saudi Arabia and the 1971 settlement between Iran and
Sharjah on Abu Musa Island. These were followed by a number
of other settlements such as: continental-shelf boundary
division of 1970 between Iran and Qatar; 1972 between Iran
and Bahrain; 1975 between Iran and Oman and the river and
inland boundary settlement between Iran and Iraq in that
same year. Maritime boundaries between Iran and Kuwait, at
the head of the Persian Gulf, was covered by a draft
agreement between the two sides which came about in 1962,
but it is not in force because of Iraq's continued
territorial disputes with Iran and Kuwait.

In all, maritime boundaries in two areas of the Persian
Gulf have not been settled. These are the north-west areas
between Iran, Kuwait, and Iraq and the area between Iran
and UAE because of uncertainties concerning the two Tunbs
and Abu Musa islands.

The issue of the two Tunbs and Abu Musa islands:

In late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the
British occupied a number of Iranian islands in the Persian
Gulf, either directly or through assumed sovereignty for
the so-called Trucial Emirates. These included Tunbs and
Abu Musa as well as Qeshm, Hengam and Sirri islands.

A War Office map, presented by the British Minister in
Tehran to the Shah in 1888 confirmed all these islands, as
Iranian owned. Iran's case was further strengthened with
the publication in 1892 of Lord Curzon's Persia and the
Persian Question in which the map also showed the islands
as Iranian territory.

British fear of a Russian encroachment in the Persian Gulf
intensified at the turn of the twentieth century. In 1902 a
secret meeting at the British Foreign Office decided that
the strategic islands at or near the Strait of Hormuz
should be occupied. This decision was communicated to
British political administrators in India and the Persian
Gulf in a memorandum dated July 14th 1902. A year later the
government of India sanctioned occupation of the islands of
Tunb and Abu Musa in the name of the Sheikh of Sharjah.

Iran was on the brink of civil war and the authority of the
central government was at its weakest. It took the Iranians
about one year to realise what had happened. During his
tour of southern ports and islands in April 1904, Director
of Iranian Customs found out that the Iranian flag was
replaced in Tunb and Abu Musa by the flag of the Sheikh of
Sharjah. He lowered that flag and ordered the Iranian flag
to be re-hoisted. He also commissioned two armed guards at
Abu Musa. The Iranian flag was lowered again and the two
sides decided to maintain status quo pending further
negotiations.

Meanwhile, Iran continued struggles for the recovery of its
islands as Iranian customs office wrote to the government
in July 1927, demanding action against illegal trade by
establishing observation posts on the three islands. A
small fleet of Iranian navy was sent to recover Abu Musa
and the two Tunbs and to put an end to the problem there.

The Anglo-Iranian Negociations of 1928:

When Iran prepared in 1928 to take her territorial dispute
with Britain to the League of Nations, the British agreed
to negotiate the status of the Tunbs, Abu Musa and Sirri
islands. These negotiations began in January 1929 and
continued until mid-spring 1929 without much progress.
Baldwin's Conservative government was replaced in May that
year by a Labour government, and Arthur Henderson replaced
Chamberlain as Foreign Secretary. Henderson showed a more
protective line towards Britain's colonial role in the
Persian Gulf and brought Clive's negotiations with the
Iranians on the issue of the Tunbs and Abu Musa to an
abrupt end. This led the Iranians to try to recover the
island in the 1930s through a series of actions.

Sheikh of Ras al-kheimah returns the Tunb Island:

In 1934 Governor of Bandar Abbas and other Iranian
officials visited Greater Tunb. This visit was the result
of a secret Iranian arrangement with the Sheikh of Ras
al-Kheimah according to which the Sheikh lowered his flag
in Greater Tunb and the Iranian flag was hoisted instead.
Earlier, an Iranian warship in Tunb's territorial waters
seized a Trucial Coast dhow. These activities attracted the
attention of the British who vigorously protested against
what was going on in that island. The Iranian government
was also orally informed that the British Government would
as a last resort protect the interests of the Trucial
Sheikhs by force. They intervened at the end of this
episode and reversed that development.

Further Developments:

When, at the end at the end of 1948, the Iranians expressed
a wish to place administrative offices on Tunb and Abu
Musa, the British ignored it. In 1949 there were rumours,
first that Iran was preparing to refer the case to the
United Nations, later that they intended to occupy the
islands by force. The Iranian government subsequently
received a note from the British Embassy in Tehran
reminding them of -clear attitude - of the British
Government in that respect. The Iranians in return erected
a Flagstaff on Lesser Tunb in August that year, which the
Royal Navy promptly removed.

Iran's protests and actions for the recovery of these
islands continued until the British began withdrawing from
the region. The issue however, was settled through
negotiations that lasted throughout the year 1971 between
Iran and Britain the latter acting on behalf of its
protectorate emirates. This was the outcome of about 68
years of Iranian protests and demands for the return of the
islands. Unlike claims by some sources, this was not an
occupation but a negotiated settlement. Otherwise the
British at least should have issued a statement of protest
against the signing of the MoU between Iran and their
protectorate Emirate of Sharjah concerning status of Abu
Musa island and against Iran's seizure of the two Tunbs.

Renewal of Claims on the islands:

Iranian authorities were reported in April 1992 to have
prevented a group of non-nationals from Sharjah from
entering Abu Musa. The High Council of the UAE met on May
12th to discuss the issue and agreed that commitments of
each member states before 1971 were to be treated as
commitments of the Union as a whole.

Again reports on 24 August indicated that Iranian
authorities refused entry to Abu Musa of one hundred people
of different nationalities. Iranian sources made it clear
that the reason for their action was that lately suspicious
activities were seen in the Arab part of Abu Musa involving
a number of armed individuals from other countries,
including Western states.

The UAE, on the other hand, without officially denying
these serious charges of breach of the 1971 MoU, accused
Iran of preventing UAE nationals from entering Abu Musa
demanding visas from them.

Tension began to ease towards the end of 1992, but in late
December, the closing statement of the 13th summit of the
Arabic countries' Co-operation Council of the Persian Gulf,
announced in Abu Dhabi, called on Iran to terminate
"occupation" of the Tunb islands.

Some of the UAE Arguments:

The following two are the main points argued by the United
Arab Emirates and Iran's response to them:

1-Priority in occupation:
The first is the argument of "priority in occupation". This
claim is vague and ignores the following facts:

A- Whereas the emirates appeared on the political map of
the region only in 19th century, Iran was an ancient nation
and was the only government in the vicinity of these
islands at the time. All historical documents verify that
all islands of northern half of the Persian Gulf have
always belonged to Iran.
B- Ras al-Khaimeh did not exist at the turn of 20th
century, and Sharjah was not, at the time, an emirate of
territorial dimension to be able to claim offshore
territories. The Sheikh was a tribal chief under British
protection, whose authority was to the tribal people
without territorial definition. One should not ignore the
fact that British pretext for taking control in the Persian
Gulf was to suppress the activities of the same tribes,
then referred to by them as "pirates" of no political
entity, let alone territorial dimension.
C- In the nineteenth century, Iran had lease arrangements
with Oman, according to which Fath Ali Shah in 1811 and
Naser ad-Din Shah in 1856 granted the Sultan lease title to
Bandar Abbas, Minab and southern Persian Gulf coastal areas
from east to west as far as Bahrain. If all these areas
belonged to Iran, the islands of Abu Musa and the two Tunbs
situated in its geographical centre could not have been
"unoccupied".
D- Iran's sovereignty and ownership of these islands, as
well as all other offshore and inland areas of the country,
were traditionally established without the display of flags
of identity. Marking occupation or ownership of territory
by hoisting flags was a new concept introduced to the
region by European powers.
E- Nevertheless, in 1887 Iran hoisted flags in Sirri and
Abu Musa to mark her ownership of these islands after
dismissing the Qasemi deputy governors of Bandar Lengeh.
F- Geographical documents from Arab & Islamic historians of
the post-Islamic era confirm that all islands of the
Persian Gulf belonged to Iran.
G- Prime Minister Haji Mirza Aqasi's 1840s proclamation of
Iran's ownership of all islands in the Persian Gulf was not
challenged by any government then or at any time
thereafter.
H- An official British document verifies that after the
establishment of one branch of the Qasemi family at Lengeh,
the family occupied the Iranian islands, probably in the
"confused period subsequent to the death of Nadir Shah".
This story is an admission that Tunbs, Abu Musa and Sirri
islands belonged to Iran and were illegally occupied at a
time when Iran in practice was leaderless.
I- More than 25 official or semi-official British maps of
18th and 19th centuries discovered by this author confirm
Iran's ownership of these islands.
J- Sir E. Beckett, legal expert of British Government at
the Foreign Office (who later served as a judge at the
International Court of Justice) ruled in 1932 that the
Iranians possessed sovereignty over Tamb and Abu Musa in
1887-88.

2-Nineteenth-century correspondence:
Apart from resorting to these old and long exhausted
arguments put forward by the British during the colonial
era, the UAE bases its claims over these islands on a
number of letters exchanged between the Qasemis of Bandar
Lengeh, Sharjah and Ras al-Khaimeh. Some of these letters
date as far back as 1864. They are contradictory and make
fanciful claims on various localities up and down the
region.

The most important of these letters was written by Shaikh
Yusef Al-Qasemi of Bandar Lengeh to the Sheikh of Ras
al-Khaimeh, in which the latter states: "the island of Tunb
actually or in reality is for you". There is little doubt
about the nature of this sentence as a standard oriental
compliment. A few lines below this statement, Shaikh Yusef
adds a further compliment: "and the town of Lengeh is your
town". No one has ever been under any illusion, then or at
any other time, that Port Lengeh had ever belonged to any
country but Iran. When this reference to Lengeh as
belonging to the Sheikh of Ras al-Khaimeh has never been
and cannot be taken as anything other than a
courtesy/compliment, one must ask, how could a similar
reference to Tunb Island be taken literally? Certainly the
expression "mi case es su casa" ought not to be.

When in 1929 King Abdul-Aziz of Saudi Arabia wrote to the
Sheikh of Bahrain complaining about the treatment of his
subjects there, received a letter of from the Sheikh who
states that "Bahrain, Qatif, Hasa and Nejd were all one and
belong to Your Majesty". Certainly inclusion of Bahrain in
that list could not have been but pure compliment.

International Reaction:

International reaction to the UAE claims to the Iranian
owned islands of Abu Musa and the two Tunbs has been one of
impartiality in spite of ten years of campaign by Abu Dhabi
for politicising and internationalising the issue. Despite
the issue of routine statements by the Arab League and the
Arabic countries forming the (Persian) GCC in support of
UAE position, Arab states on the whole remain impartial and
privately apologise to the Iranian authorities for "having
to sign" those statements. This hypocrisy clearly
represents Arab scepticism of these claims, especially at a
time when Arab-Iranian cooperation is high on the political
agenda of both sides in the Persian Gulf.

Of the major powers in the West none has taken side in this
dispute. Politicians from time to time tried to murmur
support for Abu Dhabi but stopped playing games as soon as
they were reminded of their government's impartiality in
the matter. This was particularly true of former UK Foreign
Office Minister, Late Derrick Fatched. He stopped all the
activities he had started in support of Abu Dhabi as soon
as the prominent Iranian scholar and reseracher "Dr. Pirouz
Mojtahedzadeh" wrote and reminded him that it was his
government that negotiated and legally settled the issue of
these islands with Iran in 1971.

Similarly, a recent Gulf 2000 (of Columbia University)
publication, Security in the Persian Gulf, edited by the
controversial and opportunist Gary Sick (one of the former
President Jimmy Carter's advisors and a well known
pro-Khatami lobbyist in the US) and his deputy, Dr.
Lawrence Potter, show indication of partiality in favour of
UAE claims. While Iranian contribution to this book is
deliberately arranged to be from non-specialist sources,
Dr. Al-Alkim, the over zealous promoter of Abu Dhabi's
territorial claims against Iran is given the opportunity in
his chapter, to launch even a personal attack on Dr. Pirouz
Mojtahedzadeh's contribution to the academic debate on the
issue. He declared Mojtahedzadeh's works in proving Iran's
"claims" to Tunb and Abu Musa islands as ineffective and
useless. This is done despite the fact that Mojtahedzadeh
wrote to Dr. Potter in advance of this publication,
reminding him, in no uncertain terms, that partiality of
their approach to the issue was patently obvious. Moreover,
normally there is no need for any reference to a useless or
ineffective work in an academic book. Not only does such
remarks put academic impartiality of the book in doubt, but
also implies displeasure with the effectiveness of
Mojtahedzadeh's works, which has secured UAE' political
isolation in the region to the extend that Abu Dhabi had to
abandon its anti-Iranian policies in 2002. There's a big
doubt that Dr. Al-Alkim has read any of Mojtahedzadeh or
various other scholars and historians works in this regard.
Once in a seminar in London Mojtahedzadeh gave him a copy
of his collection of facts and documents "The Islands of
Tunb and Abu Musa" (CNMES/ SOAS 1995), but Al-Alkim
declined reading it. Had he read that book or any other
academic work on Iran's position vis-Ã-vis these islands,
he would know that Iran does not "claim" these islands;
Iran owns them and they are under Iranian sovereignty and
control. It is only Abu Dhabi that claims these islands.

Finally, by referring to the issue as "the unfinished
business", the controversial and opportunist Gary Sick and
Lawrence Potter make their partiality in their treatment of
the issue of UAE claims to Tunbs and Abu Musa islands
blatantly clear at the beginning of their book. Considering
the fact that Iran and Britain legally settled the issue
through negotiations in 1971, one wanders what unfinished
business they refer to?

As the legal guardian of the emirates at the time, Great
Britain completed the business by negotiating the legal
instrument of 1971 MoU between Iran and Sharjah on Abu
Musa, and by agreeing to the unconditional return of the
two Tunbs to Iran. What they conveniently ignore here is
the fact that if the business was unfinished in any way,
Great Britain had the legal obligation of launching an
official protest against Iran. Rather, we all know that
UK's permanent representative at the United Nations
declared on December 9, 1971 the overall settlement of the
issue of these islands as a model agreement for the
settlement of similar territorial differences elsewhere in
the world.

Some of the latest UN Documents related to this issue:

1- UN Editorial directive regarding use of the term Persian
Gulf
United Nations Secretariat
ST/CS/SER.A/29/Add.2
94-33224 (E) 180894
Prepared by Editorial Control
To: Members of the staff
Subject: Use of the term "Persian Gulf"
Addendum
Attention is once again drawn to editorial directive
ST/CS/SER.A/29 and Corr.1 and Add.1 on the use of the term
"Persian Gulf". The purpose of the present addendum is to
urge that care be taken to ensure the appropriate use of
this term in documents, publications and statements
prepared by the Secretariat.
The full term "Persian Gulf" should be used in every case
instead of the shorter term "Gulf", including in
repetitions of the term after its initial use in a text.

2- UN Editorial directive regarding the Persian Gulf
99-14427 (E) 200599
United Nations ST/CS/SER.A/29/Rev.1
Secretariat 14 May 1999
Editorial directive Prepared by Editorial Control
To: All those concerned with drafting and editing United
Nations documents and publications
Subject: Use of the terms ?Persian Gulf?, ?Gulf? and ?Shatt
al-Arab?
1. The term?Persian Gulf? is used in documents,
publications and statements emanating from the Secretariat
as the standard geographical designation for the sea area
between the Arabian Peninsula and the Islamic Republic of
Iran. The full term ?Persian Gulf? is always used to
designate that sea area when it is first referred to in a
text and is repeated thereafter whenever necessary for the
sake of clarity.
2. The term ?Gulf? is used in documents, publications and
statements emanating from the Secretariat to identify or
refer to the general geographical area surrounding or
adjacent to the sea area referred to in paragraph 1 above
or to refer to the situation around that sea area.
The terms ?Gulf area?, ?Gulf region? and ?Gulf States? are
examples of such usage.
3. In verbatim or summary records when a speaker is quoted,
when material provided by a Government is circulated, or
when a resolution or decision of a deliberative body of the
United Nations is adopted, the Secretariat reproduces,
without any change, the terminology used by the speaker,
Government or deliberative body concerned.
4. In cases of doubt, staffmembers are requested to contact
the Editorial Control Section, which will issue a ruling
after appropriate consultation.
5. The present directive supersedes editorial directives
ST/CS/SER.A/29 and Corr.1 and Add.1 and 2, except with
regard to use of the term ?Shatt al-Arab?.

Conclusion on a "Finished Business":

Historical facts are self-evident and require not proof.
There has been new vain attempt claim of the ownership of
Tunbs, (greater and lesser), Abu-Mousa, Sirri also to
re-name that body of water, which for several millennia has
been universally known as Iranian territory. Ineffective
attempts to occupy the true territory of Iran, separate
parts by claiming has been game playing plots
supported/manipulated by British government, thus they are
in the opinion having ownership of every valuable
water-body or strategic land. Claiming does not provide
evidence of ownership.

Many who are unaware of historical truths fall in their
trap for wasting time and effort. It is easy to be
manipulated for those who do not bother to study the
history of the region. Un-educated unintentionally
contribute to a psychological warfare against the Iranian
people.

Exhaustive, typically political negotiation during
1971-1973, has lead British government to abandon its
claim. Their ambassador to United Nation declared it while
world have had listened. Brits never left their weary
attempts influencing others to claim dispute on their
behalf.

(*) Dr. Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh is a well known and prominent
scholar and most his works are considered as key references
in Int.' issues. The above text is mainly a compilation of
one of his speeches made at the University of London (UK).

Apparently, The National Geographic's latest World Atlas, one of the world's leading publications in this topic, has misrepresented (mistake or by purpose?) "The Persian Gulf". In its latest (Eighth) Edition the Persian Gulf has been introduced as Arabian Gulf!

1 - Please read the details and review the United Nations documents.

2 - It is very important that every single one of us provides feedback to National Geographic, since it is one of the most widely used publications in this field!

For those of you who are very busy (like me), below is a sample letter that you can use. You can simply copy and paste this in the above website. It might take only 1 minute!

National Geographic

Dear Sir/Madam:

I find it highly offensive for your organization to change the historical name of Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf. World historical records abundantly make it clear that this body of water for many thousands of years has been called "The Persian Gulf” that belongs to Iran (Persia). I strongly condemn this offensive and colossal mistake (or politically motivated action?) in your part to compromise a well known historical fact and Iran's territorial integrity. Your actions, if not corrected, will be considered a total disregard to the history of the world, as well as international laws and regulations. This unjustified mistake can also be considered an act of hostility toward 70 million Persians/Iranians. Sincerely,

4 - Forward this email to your family and friends and ask for their support.

Remember: "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." Martin Luther King, Jr

The above electronic message is the personal views of the sender of this email, and does not represent the viewpoint of the affiliated organization. As a result, this message should be considered and tagged as a personal and non-official email message.

Dear Editors of the National Geographic,

Your prestigious publication seems to have lost its sense of objectivity, historical facts, scientism, and acute judgment in relation to an ancient land, its thousands of years of cultural heritage, and its historical reality. If we are to continue with your illogical logic and confused criteria, you may as well add other parentheses in front of the globally accepted and recognized name of The Persian Gulf, e.g., (The Gulf) as used very unjustifiably by the British to appease the Arabs; (Basrah Korfosu) as it was called by the Sick Man of Europe - the Ottomans, and still used by some Turks as the inheritors of that obfuscated state of affairs. As an old student of History, Political Science, and Diplomacy, I just could not allow your publication to go unheeded with such a grave blunder. I, therefore, had to very respectfully submit this tutorial in the Science of Geography, which until very recently was supposed to have been your area of expertise! In conclusion, I request that your correction and declared apology should come imminently to remedy the already affronted national rights and integrity of the Iranian people everywhere.

Sincerely; Michael M.

Dear Editor,

Is it a conspiracy or sheer mistake???!

In your World Map of 2004 wrong name is used for PERSIAN GULF, into parentheses.

As an authentic referenced publication, if any controversial article or name change is published, then well documented proper clarification is in order.

Since you have chosen to change the old established name of PERSIAN GULF, (if it is neither conspiracy nor bribery involved), we ask the National Geographic Magazine to come forward with authentic reason &

documents concerning this name change.

Up until now, to the numerous protest towards this matter, your replies were not authentic, which it should have been, It indicates your stubborn way of behavior, which is contrary to the spirit of impartial scientific publication, such as National Geographic Magazine.

For you to catch the point, I ask a simple question; presumably, if all the names of your neighborhood are the same, are you ready to change your own name to identify with the rest?

Are the surrounding countries of the BLACK SEE are all BLACKS?

Above all, as a third person who does not even live in the region, do you feel fit to change long and well established name of PERSIAN GULF?

For your forgotten information, we have to point out, that when in 1936 the name of our country was changed from PERSIA to IRAN we, The Iranians did not feel proper, or justified to change the old well established authentic name of PERSIAN GULF to IRANIAN GULF!

Have you ever thought why we refrained to do so? Are we Iranians more responsible not to fiddle with the Geographical names than you are?

For the same reason, nobody, worst of the them NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC has any reason or right to change the ancient geographic name. By adhering to this kind of unbecoming action you add to the confusion, misunderstanding, conflicts, political, economic upheaval, worst than what already prevails in that region.

Have you ever thought that if the case is taken to the International Tribunal against your false publication, what would be your justification & authentic answer for such a deliberate irresponsible act?

It is essential to bring to your notice, that if the 65 million or so Iranians just walk across the PERSIAN GULF, as they did so, on Sadam Hussein’s land mines, what remains from the hand full of the inhabitants of the other side of that shallow water?

We await the proper correction of your recent map & your apology to the entire world for committing such a grave uncalled for mistake.

The Speaker for the United Iranian constitutional Monarchists

Abdol Reza Heidari M.D.

To protest National Geographic actions, Just copy and paste the address below to lodge a protest:

oh my! havent you made a fool of yourself! your rage is out of control! we should report you! this is exactly the hypocracy i was talking about on the dear limey assholes thread_________________"When on the battlefield if you have the sole intention of breaking into the enemy lines, you will manifest martial valour. Furthermore if you are slain in battle you should be resolved to having your corpse facing the enemy" - Yamamoto tsunetomo

Worst is your partisan claim that the three islands in Persian Gulf is claimed by UAE, as occupied by Iran. That by itself is taking sides, which is beyond your above said principals.

As an Iranian, ex subscriber to your Magazine I am not at all satisfied or convinced of your clarification and impartiality.

Any inclusion of political conflict between two nations, not only is contrary to scientific spirit of your magazine, it brings down your publication to the level of ordinary gossip mongering, tabloid trash magazine.

You are very well aware of what I am getting at, but trying to bit around the bush to cover your terrible mistake.

That is futile, since that kind of excuse could not be considered from apparently ex-prestigious magazine, such as National Geographic Magazine.

You mention that you did the same thing in 1991, which is true. But, at that time, I did send you back your world map & pointed out your mistake. You apologised for non observance of your principals. To adhere to your first mistake as a pretext to cover up your second one is indeed terribly childish.

You should always have in mind the kind of your readers, who are well educated & sufficiently aware of the world affairs; to fool such a readership by irrelevant excuse is under estimating the capacity of your readership! That is indeed bizarre!

National Geographic Books has recently published its Eighth Edition Atlas of the World. Questions have been raised regarding the decision to use both a primary name, "Persian Gulf", and an alternative secondary name, (Arabian Gulf), for the body of water situated between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. This designation appears on two map plates in the Eighth Edition Atlas of sufficient scale for this level of detail. While National Geographic considers "Persian Gulf" to be the primary name, it has been the Society's cartographic practice to display a secondary name in parentheses when use of such a name has become commonly recognized.

The Society does not follow any single source to make such determinations, and seeks to be accurate, apolitical and objective. Decisions regarding nomenclature assigned to geographic places, locations, bodies of water, and the like are checked ag ainst a number of external entities, including the Board on Geographic Names, recognized reference books such as encyclopedias, dictionaries, and geographical dictionaries. The Arabian Gulf is recognized as a variant naming of the Persian Gulf by many such entities. In fact, the Society first used the primary-secondary dual listing on a Middle East map published in 1991.

In using the dual primary-secondary indicator, the Society specifically seeks to acknowledge sometimes conflicting naming claims involving bordering bodies of water. The Society does not attempt to make judgments about the validity of such claims but accurately to acknowledge the existence of the conflicting names. The Society has decided to make a change for the purpose of clarification and will include an explanatory note on this treatment of the Persian Gulf in future iterations of the Atlas and area maps, including to our on-line maps at nationalgeographic.com, as it does occasionally with other n aming issues.
Our naming policy on the Persian Gulf is consistent with our cartographic treatment of other parts of the world, such as the body of water between Japan and Korea, for which we show the primary name as the "Sea of Japan," and a secondary alternative name, (East Sea).

Questions have also been raised about the labeling of the islands of Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunb. National Geographic's research determined that these islands are currently the subject of a dispute between Iran and the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.). While Iran controls these islands, the U.A.E. claims them. Our large-scale regional maps include a notation to acknowledge that dispute: "Occupied by Iran (claimed by the U.A.E.)"

National Geographic will insert additional clarifying language on the map plates relating to the Persian Gulf in subsequent printings of the Atlas, and will add such notations to its on-line maps.

The eighth edition of the Atlas of the World is 416 pages, with more than 140,000 place names. More than 15,000 cartographic changes and updates were made in the course of creating this edition, which was five years in the making.

On the eve of the 15th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Children, ratified by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989, we would like to remind you of the plight of children and youth in Iran. It is a bitter fact that Iranian children remain deprived of many basic individual and social rights guaranteed under this Convention.

Paragraph (a) of Article 37, states that parties shall ensure that: “No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age”.

Although the Islamic Republic of Iran has been a signatory to this convention for ten years, it has repeatedly violated it in spirit and in practice by systematically refusing to implement its clauses. While a minimum age of eighteen is mandatory under the Iranian Civil/Business Law for a person to enter a business transaction, under the Criminal Law, by invoking Islamic Canon Law (The Shari’a) it is sufficient for a child to reach the age of adolescence and/or puberty, nine years, in the case of a girl and fifteen years in the case of a boy, to become punishable for a criminal offense.

Consequently, children who suffer from inadequate protection within their immediate family and who are victims of social circumstances in the first place are treated as if they were mature adults answerable to Criminal Law. These minors are liable to be charged for committing offenses, indicted, imprisoned and even sentenced to death - (the sentence to be carried out as soon as they reach their eighteenth birthday) in violation of International norms and conventions including the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In view of this unacceptable and deplorable situation, a number of human right activists, writers, lawyers, and NGOs who focus on or support the plight of children have recently joined forces in writing an open letter to The Supreme Council of Justice of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Shoray-e a’li-ye ghazaie) urging that the Council take proper steps to abolish the criminal punishment of minors in Iran. The Council has declared itself as lacking the authority to deal with this matter and has referred the appeal to the seventh Legislative Assembly of the IRI (Majlis-e shoray-e eslami) declaring that it is within the prerogative of the Majlis to consider this motion.

Your Excellency!

As members of The Executive Committee of the Iranian Children's Right Society and on behalf of individuals who has signed this open letter in support of our petition to you, and in view of the critical responsibility bestowed upon Your Excellency by the international community and encouraged by your good office and outstanding record in safeguarding the implementation of UN conventions and resolutions we respectfully demand that:

Through your good office the Legislative Assembly (Majlis-e shoray-e eslami) and the Supreme Council of Justice of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Shoray-e a’li-ye ghazaie) are urged to revise those clauses of Criminal Law practiced in Iran that are in gross violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and stipulate that the Islamic Republic of Iran is required under UN Charter to remove all clauses of its practiced criminal law that contradict its obligation as a signatory to the Convention.

Your Excellency!

As indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth." Under the UN Charter on The Rights of The Child, every child has the right to life, and rehabilitation, the Children of Iran are putting their fate in your capable hands. Given that for many of these children there would simply be no future unless you take appropriate measures to ensure their safety and impose full implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, we plead with you to persist in demanding that the Islamic Republic of Iran adhere absolutely to the rules of the Convention on the rights of the Children which it agreed to implement a decade ago.

Many asked to me how , if not with a military action, can the democratic nations help overthrow the Islamic Regime.

I wrote this :

It may be reached by :

1) not establishing any form of dialogue with the Mullahs (even if the latter claim they have abandoned nukes - as they're lying after all )
2) Pressuring the European countries to stop making business deals with the Mullahs
3) Financing the Iranian Opposition, both inside and outside Iran ( these include continuous funding of US-based Persian Satellite Networks)
4) Announcing a Clear US Policy toward Iran, based on Regime Change and not encouragement of "reforms" which are incompatible with the Terrorist nature of the Islamic regime.
5) Finally approving the Iranian Liberation Act , already in the Senate but needed for final approvation.
This is the key.
Let's stop worrying about loosing the Euros' sympathy.
We need to worry if we loose the support and admiration of one of the most pro-US populations in this world._________________Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)

THE PERSIAN GULF IS THE PERSIAN GULF- March 1998
From Focus on Iran publication By Dr. Assad Homayoun

“…When the American, like the British before them, grow weary of their imperial duties and sail away, Iran will dominate the Persian Gulf. It is ordained. No nation in the region can match Iran’s size, population or power…The question is: what kind of Iran shall it be? “ Patrick Buchanan- The Washington Times , Commentary, January 14, 1998

Historical facts are known and self-evident. Throughout the years, a few of Iran's neighbouring countries have claimed many of Iran's men of sciences and letters as their own. Sadly enough, now there is yet a new vain attempt to re-name that body of water which for several millennia has been universally known as the "Persian Gulf' to the "Arabian Gulf'.
There are those who are unaware of the historical truths and while they do not bother to study the history of the region, they unintentionally contribute to a psychological warfare against the Iranian people. Among them, are certain elements in the U.S.

Defence Department, especially those who serve in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain. In order to appease local sensitivities, "they" use "Arabian Gulf" instead of the "Persian Gulf' simply to please their hosts, unaware that they are refusing to accept historical facts and international usage. Indeed they are offending the national feelings of the Iranian nation.
The ancient Greek geographers and historians called this body of water "Sinus Persicus". It is interesting that since before the time of Christ until as late as the 17" century, the world greatest historians and cartographer s from Strabon and Ptolemy to famous Flemish geographer, Mercator, along with Arab historians referred to the Gulf south of Iran as either "Sinus Persicus" or " Mare Persicum", as distinct from "Arabicus Sinus", the name they used to refer to what is known as the Red Sea.
The "Arabian Gulf' was the ancient name of the Red Sea, actually a gulf prior to being connected with the Mediterranean via the opening of the Suez Canal. For the last two millennia the term "Persian Gulf' has been used universally by historians, geographers, scholars, strategists and politicians. Also Arab historians and geographers from Ibn al-Mujawir to Yusuf Kamal, author of "Monumenta Cartographica", used "AlKhalij al-Fars", or Persian Gulf. The late president Sadat of Egypt, in his book, "Revolt on the Nile", correctly identified the Gulf by its historical and original name. Anyone who has troubled himself to look at antique maps, contemporary writings and research documents, historical accounts of the region and encyclopedias written either by western or eastern observers and scholars would conclude that there is but one single name that is applicable to the Persian Gulf. It is the practice of the White House, the State Department, the U.S. government agencies and also the United Nations Secretariat, and National Geographic Society, to use in the document and maps the term "Persian Gulf" to indicate the body of water between Iran to the north and east and a number of other states to the south and west. It is a long established usage that is followed by publishers of atlases and geographical dictionaries.
It was in the 1950s that and in order to manipulate the simple yet vital nationalistic sentiment of its people, that the then Iraqi president Colonel Abdol Karim Ghasem, ventured to refer to the "Persian Gulf', as the "Arabian Gulf'. His intention was to create a new common enemy for the Arab world which were busy fighting Israel under the guidance of Egyptian Colonel, Gamal Abdol Nasser, and to divert the attention of Arab world from Nasser's leadership in Egypt to his own in Baghdad. This strategy back-fired in the true sense of the word The scholastic community in Baghdad as a whole, and the faculty in the Baghdad University, especially due to overwhelming amount of historic and geographical evidence, reaching back to records as ancient as 2.5 millennia, refrained from supporting the belligerent and the unfounded claim of Colonel Abdol Karim Ghasem.
Even later, when President Gamal Abdol Nasser under the pretext of enhancing his Pan-Arabist ideology proceeded to use Ghasem's self-invented term for the "Persian Gulf', he was instantly reminded of his own earlier comments wherein he had emphatically described the boundaries of the Arab World as: "Menal Moheet al-Atlasi elal Khalij-ol Farsi " (from Atlantic Ocean to the Persian Gulf)
As mentioned before, throughout history, educators, historians, travelers and geographers have always referred to this region as the "Persian Gulf"not only because of the vast coastal lines of various Persian Empire or the number of its Persian/Iranian inhabitants, but simply, and in their own words, to recognize the noble notion that, "The Persians were the first to have developed and greatly improved this part of the earth"
Therefore, to apply the term "Arabian Gulf' or any other name to the Persian Gulf is an error, and indeed is to become a party to the psychological warfare mainly aimed against the Iranian people. Thus, this change of historical name, especially by some in the service of the U. S. government who are serving in the region is entirely absurd, counterproductive, and does not serve the interests of the United States.
We can hope that sooner or later, the rule of reason and rationalism will triumph in Iran and liberty and democracy will replace the Theocratic regime in Tehran. Iranians and Arab must live together in peace. The Untied States and the Arab nations of the region need to deal with the people of Iran, in a just and equitable manner, just as the Iranians need to deal similarly with their neighbours. Furthermore Iran must re-establish friendly relationship with the United States on the basis of mutual trust and equality. The U.S. Department of Defense and especially the Navy which always take geo-strategic factors into consideration, must also take seriously the historic sensitivity and the rightful concerns of the Iranian people.

It should be remembered that for three decades prior to the revolution in Iran, the Pentagon trained close to 30,000 members of Iranian Armed Forces and considered Iran a principal element of the regions stability. It ought not forget the past and close the door to future friendly relationships that will indeed be essential for stability and peace in the Persian Gulf. It should be remembered also that the Iranian Navy played a crucial role as the stabilizer for two decades following the British withdrawal from the Persian Gulf in 1971. Indeed it was the Iranian Armed Forces which defended both north and south of the Strait of Homuz against Marxist subversion. On one hand it prevented the fall of Oman, and on the other hand thwarted the Yemeni inspired guerrillas to undermine the Persian Gulf Sheikdoms.
Iran is a land bridge between two centers of the world's most important energy zones, and the only power among the Persian Gulf states that has the capability to undertake military operation beyond its own frontiers. Iran is in the heart of the Eurasian Corridor. Because of its geo-strategic location, population, resources and cultural identity it can play a decisive role in the security of the Persian Gulf.. Iran was once a moderating force and it could, once again become a moderate regional force, friendly to the United States.
For more information and clarification we would like to refer the readers to following publications mostly written by historians, geographers and scholars regarding the Persian Gulf. We are certain that only through rational channels we can shed light on and sort historical facts from baseless propaganda, which were at one time aimed to toy with the territorial integrity of Iran, albeit currently being directed in reaction to the short-sighted policies and irresponsible political behaviour of the ruling clerical regime of Tehran.

Unfortunately due to powerful anti-Iranian activities and the typical incompetence of the Islamic Republic that occupies Iran, the southern states of the Persian Gulf who have only come to existence thanks to foreign powers, have slowly become more brazen. As a result the National Geographic Society has printed at least three major erroneous statements in its Atlas of the World 2005 (Eighth Edition, ISBN: 0-7922-7543-8 & ISBN: 0-7922-7542-x) regarding Iran and the Persian Gulf.

Considering the fact that the National, Geographic is the biggest non-profit educational and scientific institution, it is hard for us to fathom how they made reference to the Persian Gulf with an unrecognized name. The United Nations, in addition to historical records and facts that date back more than thousands of years, have made it abundantly clear that the body of water in question is recognized as the Persian Gulf.

The atlas also falsely claims that several Persian Gulf Islands belong to the newly created United Arab Emirates. It would appear that the National Geographic Society has joined hands with the enemies of Iran, and is now openly helping those who seek to compromise Iran’s territorial integrity. Perhaps the National Geographic Society should look back on it’s own maps to see that 33 years ago no entity by the name of United Arab Emirates existed, however Iran did. Furthermore, the National Geographic itself had previously always used the formal, and legitimate name, the Persian Gulf to reference the body of water in question. The National Geographic’s stance encourages conflict in an area which has experiences relative calm with the use of the official and internationally recognized name of the Persian Gulf for centuries. Iran has existed for more then seven thousand years, and to now have a publication attempt to strip it of its historical territory will not be tolerated.

The Atlas goes further to claim that the Persian Gulf Islands are being occupied by Iran. If anything is being occupied, it would be various parts of Iran that have been taken from us through illegal means starting 33 years ago.

The Marze Por Gohar Party condemns the policies of the National Geographic that have made it possible for such illegitimate maps to be published. We look to hear from the National Geographic regarding the blunders they have made on their 2005 Atlas, and urge them to correct these errors, and to apologize to the nation of Iran for damaging our national culture and heritage in addition to our territorial integrity.

The enemies of Iran should know, so long as there is one Iranian alive with blood pumping through his or her heart, even the thought of taking one grain of Iranian soil, will strongly be opposed and defeated.

Long Live Iran.

Compiled by the Persian Gulf Committee of the Marze Por Gohar Party

*Please find below two links that refer to the UN documents that pertain to the Persian Gulf.